Policy

What should be the prime driver of our policy?
Equality?
Peace?
Security?
Prosperity?
or Justice?

Asia

The future is Asia. As a Pacific nation, the US should reaffirm our economic and military alliance with Japan and Australia. The US should also reach out to rising powers of India and China. Both India and China should be engaged as future partners for cooperation and competition rather than competition alone. First economic, later military.
We should turn our gaze away from Eurabia.
More on this later.

Generals in war, 5 vs. 6

From today's WSJ Editorial pages by JOHN CROSBY, THOMAS MCINERNEY, BURON MOORE AND PAUL VALLELY. The last paragraph is really all you need to read:

Foes of the Bush administration described the recent calls by six retired generals for Donald Rumsfeld to resign or be fired as "growing military pressure" for him to do so. These retired generals claim he should go for, among other things, ignoring the advice of senior military leaders and bungling the global war on terror in Iraq with poorly planned war-fighting strategies and post-Saddam planning efforts. We strongly disagree.

Like former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, we do not believe that it is appropriate for active duty, or retired, senior military officers to publicly criticize U.S. civilian leadership during war. Calling for the secretary's resignation during wartime may undercut the U.S. mission and incites individual challenge to the good order and discipline of our military culture. At best, such comments may send a confusing message to our troops deployed on dangerous missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. At worst, they can also inspire and motivate the evil forces we seek to defeat.

Since our nation's founding, the principle of civilian control over the military has been a centerpiece of our system of government. Under our constitutional system, it places elected and appointed government leaders in charge. American soldiers are bound by this tradition to subordinate themselves to civilian authority. We give advice but it is ultimately up to civilian leaders to make key strategic and policy decisions. Unlike many other democracies, this is one important reason why we have never been ruled by the military, and have been the most successful country the world has ever seen.

Some critics suggest that the calls by the six retired generals signify widespread discontent in the military with Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. It is preposterous for them to suggest that this small group represents the views of the 1.4 million men and women serving on active duty or the 7,000 retired generals and flag officers who respect, understand and appreciate the established American tradition of the military being subordinate to civilian control and direction.

Moreover, despite the frustration of the current situation in Iraq, military morale remains high, as evidenced by the high re-enlistment rate of active-duty forces. This fact belies the contention that there is rising military discontent.

The notion that Secretary Rumsfeld doesn't meet with, or ignores the advice of, senior military leaders is not founded in fact. During his tenure, senior military leaders have been involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process. In addition to the Senior Level Review Group, Defense Senior Leadership Conference, and Quadrennial Defense Review, in 2005 Secretary Rumsfeld also participated in meetings involving service chiefs 110 times and combatant commanders 163 times. Gen. Myers correctly describes these meetings as "very collaborative" with a free flow of information and discussion. Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. Central Command Commander during the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, echoes Gen. Myers's comments and supports Secretary Rumsfeld as collaborative in the decision-making process. Gen. Franks has stated recently that he is a tough collaborator and demands sound thinking and recommendations from the senior military leadership and staff.

Much of the acrimony expressed by Secretary Rumsfeld's military critics appears to stem from his efforts to "transform" the military by moving to a joint expeditionary force that is lighter and more mobile in nature to meet the nation's current and future threats. Many senior officers and bureaucrats did not support his transformation goals -- preferring conventional weapons of the past like the Crusader artillery piece and World War II war-fighting strategies, which prove practically useless against lawless and uncivilized enemies engaged in asymmetric warfare. It unfortunately appears that two of the retired generals (Messrs. Zinni and Newbold) do not understand the true nature of this radical ideology, Islamic extremism, and why we fight in Iraq. We suggest they listen to the tapes of United 93.

Despite criticisms, Mr. Rumsfeld is arguably one of the most effective secretaries of defense our nation has ever had. Under his watch, the U.S. military has been transforming; it brilliantly deposed Mullah Omar's barbaric Taliban regime (Osama bin Laden's sanctuary) and Saddam Hussein's ruthless Baathist regime, freeing 50 million people from oppression and placing the countries on democratic paths. With these actions, terrorists have been denied secure home bases. These are a few key factors why terrorists have been unable to attack the American homeland again. The policy and forward strategy implemented by Secretary Rumsfeld has taken the fight to the enemy as did the nation in World War II and the Cold War.

Some, like Generals Zinni, Newbold, Eaton, Batiste, Swannack, Riggs and others, may not like Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership style. They certainly have the right as private citizens now to speak their minds. Some may feel that he's been unfair, arrogant and autocratic to some senior officers. But those sentiments and feelings are irrelevant. In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

Lt. Gen. Crosby (ret.) is former deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. Lt. Gen. McInerney (ret.) is former assistant vice chief of staff, U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Moore (ret.), U.S. Air Force, was director of Central Command during Operation Desert Storm. Maj. Gen. Vallely (ret.) is former deputy commander of the U.S. Army, Pacific.

It doesn't really matter why the six retired generals are now speaking up in near unison, or what their motives are. Let me repeat the money phrase:

In the end he's the man in charge and the buck stops with him. As long as he [Rumsfeld] retains the confidence of the commander in chief he will make the important calls at the top of the department of defense. That's the way America works. So let's all breathe into a bag and get on with winning the global war against radical Islam. In time the electorate, and history, will grade their decisions.

No war has ever been fought with perfect forsight and planning. Even so, with all the misteps thus, the last six years the US military had seen unprecendented success on the battlefield.

Immigration

I am for legal immigration. Perhaps I am bias for being a legal immigrant myself. Never the less I do recognize the problems of illegal immigrants. My thoughts are as follow.

1. We must make it easier for foreigners to immigrate here to meet our labor needs. These guess workers must be screened prior to entry and tracked, taxed, and identified. After a set period of time, they should be able to apply for citizenship.

2. We must secure the border. If it takes a wall, so be it. But it must start with more regular and more vigilant patrols.

3. Those here illegally must apply to stay as guess workers, with possibility for citizenship. Those that fail the guess worker application must be deported.

4. Citizenship requires a test covering the constitution of the land and the political processes. The language of the land should be English but xceptions can be made for children and the elderly. While expecting illegal immigrants to pay back owed taxes may seem appealing, but the amount due cannot be confirmed. A financial requirement for citizenship, even based on what is due, will be the equivalence of buying citizenship and should be avoided.

Genocide vs women

A shocking article if true by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

One United Nations estimate says from 113 million to 200 million women around the world are demographically "missing." Every year, from 1.5 million to 3 million women and girls lose their lives as a result of gender-based violence or neglect.

How could this possibly be true? Here are some of the factors:

In countries where the birth of a boy is considered a gift and the birth of a girl a curse from the gods, selective abortion and infanticide eliminate female babies.

Young girls die disproportionately from neglect because food and medical attention is given first to brothers, fathers, husbands and sons.

In countries where women are considered the property of men, their fathers and brothers can murder them for choosing their own sexual partners. These are called "honor" killings, though honor has nothing to do with it.

Young brides are killed if their fathers do not pay sufficient money to the men who have married them. These are called "dowry deaths," although they are not just deaths, they are murders.

The brutal international sex trade in young girls kills uncounted numbers of them.

Domestic violence is a major cause of death of women in every country.

So little value is placed on women's health that every year roughly 600,000 women die giving birth.

Six thousand girls undergo genital mutilation every day, according to the World Health Organization. Many die; others live the rest of their lives in crippling pain.

According to the WHO, one woman out of every five worldwide is likely to be a victim of rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.

What is happening to women and girls in many places across the globe is genocide. All the victims scream their suffering. It is not so much that the world doesn't hear them; it is that fellow human beings choose not to pay attention.

It is much more comfortable for us to ignore these issues. And by "us," I also mean women. Too often, we are the first to look away. We may even participate, by favoring our sons and neglecting the care of our daughters. All these figures are estimates; registering precise numbers for violence against women is not a priority in most countries.

Read it all.
HT: LGF

Moussaoui

We have every right to kill our enemies. When we kill our enemies on the field of battle, it is both out of immediate and future self preservation. We kill because our enemy poses a threat to us, now and or later. But once we have captured them and have effectively declawed them, can we still claim a threat necessitating extermination? Sure we still have the right to kill our captured enemy, but it is not quite the same. A captured enemy is no longer an imminent threat, or even a likely potential threat. So to kill the captured foe requires a justification of more than just because he is an enemy. We can kill him because he has committed egregious acts. But what if he hasn't yet. Should we enact punishment for what could have been? Or is it for retribution and vengeance we should kill him?

I am a supporter of the death penalty in general, but I do not believe Moussaoui should get it. While he may have plotted and planned mass homicide, he actually did not do it. To put him to death would be in essence punish him for what the terrorists, but not he, did on 911.

We should reserve the death penalties for people who have actually committed a heinous acts.


Related:
Neo-Neocon

V for Vendetta, not quite a movie review.

V for Vendetta

In a democratic society, the government is empowered by the people rather than in power over the people. When such a government becomes oppressive and homicidal, it loses its prerogative to rule and the people are expected to replace it, by force if necessary. This movie actually undermines this principle premise. The people are portrayed as helpless sheep capable of action only after being prodded by a hero, a person of extraordinary ability and means. What kind of message is that, telling the oppressed to wait for a Savior?

As living individuals, average and ordinary, we all have the power and capability to enact changes. All of us are capable of heroic actions. To wait in silence is tacit endorsement of oppression, acknowledgement that the oppressor holds power in themselves rather than as a conduit of our power. To wait in inaction is to allow others to suffer first, until yours come knocking. I find the waiting-for-the-savior ideation diminish all of us as sentient individual human beings.

Naturally our individual power is magnified when collected as a group. All revolution fails without popular support. Thus, successful insurrection requires timing and organization of popular support. And what is popular support other than a collection of individuals?

Before storming the streets, it is worthwhile to determine whether your cause is just, and the enemy real rather than manufactured and manipulated. That requires thought and analysis. That can be started by any individual, average and ordinary even.

Other Reviews:
Architecture and Morality

Public Relation on the War on Terror

Over at Neo-neocon there is a post about public relation and propaganda during a war. My response, with regard to the War on Terror is as follows.

The war against terror is a misnomer. This is a war against fundamental and militant Islam as represented by Wahhabism, spreading among the Arabs and through the Middle East. Thus if you see this as the primary threat, then you have to formulate a strategy to defeat it.

This administration's strategy is to fight fundamentalist Islam with liberalized Islam. They believe that if given the choice, most Muslims as most humans would not kill and maim innocent non-Muslims. Liberalism at its root is predicated on individual freedom. Where could they cultivate a sufficient number of liberal Arab Muslims to stand against the fundamentalists? By taking those who would crave individual choice after years of being denied individual choices and liberate them. You start with those oppressed the worse and work your way up. Thus first liberate the Afghans under the Taliban and follow that up with Iraqi under Saddam. Risky? Very.

Thus if you are about to undertake a massive social-political-religious transformation, do you declare you intent for all to hear, especially the target of your work? There was no way this could have or ever would be declared.

So where do you start after 911? By declaring an apparent target of threat, in this case terrorists in particular and states that harbor and support them. But if you are bound by certain international laws, like the UN charter, what are your options? With Afghanistan it was easy in appearance, the Taliban had al Qaeda and refused to hand them over, thus with a blur the Taliban and al Qaeda was treated as one and the same. Now it was Afghanistan-al Qaeda that attacked the US on 911 and thus we had the legal context to strike back. Done.

But Afghanistan is far away from the core of the problem of Wahhabism that is in the Middle East (Afghanistan more Central Asian). It would have been pointless to attack Saudi Arabia because you cannot cultivate the Saudi to fight Wahhabism. The Saudis were not craving freedom from oppression. Thus Iraq. Legal context? Violation of the ceasefire from 1991.

As much as possible all the international actions had to be interpreted as consistent with our international rights and obligations. The greatest stumbling block has been the American public perception that the war against terror should only be against terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular.

What I am getting at is that while this administration has been poorer at PR than necessary, the nature of this war's strategy does not lend itself to a PR campaign. While it maybe easy now to sell capitalism over communism, this wasn't so clear 30 years ago. But at least we could announced that was your intention for all to hear. How do you go about declaring that we will turn moderate Muslims against their brethren the fundamentalist Muslims? How do you go about selling this to your domestic public and not let the international audience hear about it? I don't think it can be done well if at all.

I am satisfied with the reasons and motives for the war on terror, and its progress thus. Bad PR included, as you cannot always declare your intentions.

Modernity and Islam

Islam is currently at war with itself. Most obvious is the fight between Shia and Sunni. However, this is merely a manifestation of the war between what Islam was, and what Islam should be. The flag waved by those who defend and try to perpetuate what Islam was are predominantly carried by fundamentalists. Many of their banners were written not in the Koran, but in teachings through the ages, adopted as laws. Those who seek to reform Islam wants it modernized, but still within the teaching of Mohammed. I find this article in Asharq Alawsat very interesting (HT Xroad Arabia):

The juristic opinions expressed by Sheikh Gamal Al Banna, the brother of Sheikh Hassan Al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood caused much controversy last week as the conservatives considered Banna's views daring and unacceptable. Gamal is an Islamic intellect well known for his conflicting opinion of the tradition of interpretation. Al Azhar had condemned his book entitled, "The Responsibility for the Failure of the Islamic State in the Modern Age." The book reflects what he had once said in an interview with Al Arabia Net, that if a Muslim woman in European society felt it was safer not to wear the veil in light of recent events then she is permitted religiously to wear western headgear rather than the traditional hijab.

What is positive about this Sheikh is that he insists on declaring that he is a religious scholar despite the fierce attacks waged against him by traditional scholars and religious figures. He persistently defends the image of his late brother Hassan Al Banna that many, he states, seek to "distort."

In his most recent statements (which are not new, as they have been expressed in his books) Gamal Al Banna regarded free-mixing between the two sexes as not only permissible religiously but in fact necessary. He views the connection of men and women as natural because separation in his words is a "vicious process."

However, Gamal Al Banna has not been the first Sheikh to express such surprising and bold statements and he will certainly not be the last. Why should such bold opinions be oppressed when they are derived from the same sources as those of traditionalists and not from Western literature. This is especially the case relating to women, which many believe (including myself) is the battleground for social modernity in the Islamic world. The fact remains that the widespread fear of the modernist discourse is caused by the redefinition of the female role i

One of the major point of contention pertains to the role of the sexes. If one think about it, the hallmarks of modernity rely on equality and rights. Equality of men and women, as well of the races, thus the social fabric that binds together the community. The rights and freedoms define how individuals may act within that fabric. Seems that many if not most Muslims have already accepted in idea if not in practice the value of individual, i.e. human rights. The battle of the sexes continues.

Related post:
All Things Beautiful

Dubai Port Deal

Dubai attempted to buy managements of segments of several US ports from a British company. Ownership and management were already in foreign hands. It seems prejudiced to tolerate British ownership but not Arab. If the concern is over terrorism, keep in mind that the majority of 911 terrorists lived and planned in Western Europe.
Dubai would not be in control of port security. Never was an issue other than continued misinformation by the MSM and perpetuated by isolationists, racists, and Democrats.

This is a gross strategic error: to raise a mountain out of a mole hill and in the process alienate an ally.

Related:
All Things Beautiful
Crossroads Arabia

Democracy: WaPo gets it right

For once, WaPo gets it. FIrstly that democracy is more than just an election. Secondly that democracy is not imposed. Thirdly that it can fluourish where it never had historical precendence. Fourthly that it recognize the defacto power in existence rather than empower them. And finally, that there is little better alternatives.

THE "DEMOCRACY backlash" is in full swing, largely because of the carnage in Iraq and the electoral success of the terrorist organization Hamas in the Palestinian Authority. In the past week our op-ed writers from right to left have expressed doubts about, or opposition to, the Bush administration's project of encouraging democracy in the Middle East. From their and others' arguments, three principles tend to emerge: You can't impose democracy by force. You shouldn't push for elections, or expect a democracy to develop, until a mature "civil society" is in place. We are better off with dictators like Mubarak, Musharraf and the rest than with the alternative, which is anarchy, terrorism and religious fundamentalism.

These are serious arguments, and those of us who supported the war in Iraq in particular have a responsibility to consider them seriously. It would be comfortable for us to blame the Bush administration for everything that's gone wrong there: After all, it failed to anticipate a Baathist underground resistance, failed to prepare for postwar nation-building, failed to commit enough troops. All true. But even war planners far more diligent and serious than this administration's will get things wrong -- an assumption that should be built into any prewar calculation. And even if President Bush had gotten a lot more right than he did, Iraq still might not be at peace today.

There are and will be many lessons to be drawn from that, but "democracy cannot be imposed by force" is not one of them. For one thing, democracies do sometimes emerge from wars (Japan and Germany). More to the point, the United States never has gone to war, and is unlikely ever to go to war, with the dominant purpose of imposing democracy. We did not fight imperial Japan because we were offended by its system of internal governance. We hoped eventually to bring democracy to Korea and Vietnam, but we fought because we saw communism as a threat. We believed that unyoking the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein would be a great benefit to them, but Congress authorized (and this editorial page supported) war in Iraq not primarily for that reason but because we believed that Saddam Hussein represented a threat to U.S. national security interests -- in the weapons he was thought to possess and to crave, his flouting of international norms, his totalitarian example and his ambition to dominate the Middle East.

The second notion -- that it is foolish to press for democracy in unready societies -- also is less useful than it appears at first blush. Of course elections don't make for a democracy; the Soviet Union conducted them for years. And it's true that many of the countries that have developed democratically in the past two decades began with advantages that not everyone shares, such as (in parts of Central and Eastern Europe) memories of a democratic past between the world wars. But other nations progress without that head start. Everyone would acknowledge that it's difficult; that culture, history and ethnic politics matter; that totalitarian habits take decades to recover from. But it's hard to look around the world -- to democracies in South Korea, India, South Africa, El Salvador and Indonesia -- and come up with rules to predict where democracy can succeed and where it can't.

The unreadiness argument is often applied to countries where the election results, as in the Palestinian Authority, are not welcome in the West. The fallacy of this thinking is that it supposes that without elections Hamas and other fundamentalist movements could be suppressed or excluded from the political system. But radical Islamists and others hostile to Western interests cannot be wished away: They are powerful forces in the Middle East that, until their recent participation in elections, pursued their goals by terrorism. Democratic participation has caused Hamas, Lebanon's Hezbollah and at least some of Iraq's Sunni and Shiite groups to scale back violence at least temporarily. Over time, it is more likely than exclusion and suppression to moderate their political aims.

Amore fundamental problem with the readiness argument is that it imagines a choice that policymakers rarely enjoy. Yes, we might welcome the benign dictator who would nurture the "rule of law" until his nation was "ready" for democracy -- and then would give way gracefully to his matured people. But for the same reason that we wish for civil society as a precursor, most dictators do everything they can to squelch it. Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak gives space to the Muslim Brotherhood while persecuting his secular liberal opposition, because he wants to be the only acceptable alternative; he doesn't want a civil society. In much of the autocratic world -- Central Asia, Russia, Burma -- the picture is the same.

So it's fair to oppose democracy promotion, but only if you're honest about the alternative. Throughout much of the Muslim world, that alternative is not a gentle flowering of civil society but the conditions that after Sept. 11 were recognized as threatening: closed and stagnant economies that leave millions of young people unemployed; brutal secret police services that permeate society and stifle education and free thinking; corrupt rulers who nurture religious extremism to shield themselves at home and make trouble abroad.

Those who promote democracy as the best alternative do not imagine that it will succeed quickly, or in all places. It's important to press autocratic allies such as Mr. Mubarak to create more space for political parties, so that when elections do take place Egyptians can take advantage of them responsibly. Of course elections aren't enough; of course civil society and prosperity and the emergence of a middle class matter, too; and which comes first, and in what ways, will be different in every country.

But without elections, or the prospect of elections -- without some measure of accountability to the people -- what will induce a dictator to allow civil society to grow? The "realists" need to answer that question, too.

Our Media

John Stewart is a Comedy Channel "News" host, Larry King is CNN news host. Their exchange via Opinion Journal:

Larry King suggested to Jon Stewart that the current low ebb of the Democrats and Republicans was good for Mr. Stewart's business.


King: So, in a sense you're happy over this.
Stewart: No.

King: This gives you fodder.

Mr. Stewart replied that if government "began to solve problems in a rational way rather than just a way that involved political dividends, we would be the happiest people in the world to turn our attention to idiots like, you know, media people, no offense."

King: So, you don't want it to be bad?
Stewart: Did you really just ask me if I want it to be bad?

King: Yes because you--

Stewart: What are you--I have kids. What do you think? I want things to corrode to the point where we're all living in huts?

King: You don't want Medicare to fail?

Stewart: Are you insane?

You got to wonder when a comedy host makes more sense in life than a serious news host.

Cartoon Response

I believe in freedom of speech, but like all freedoms the practice of which entails a certain amount of responsibility. Having said that, I do not believe the Danish cartoons have crossed the line.

I also believe in freedom of speech in response to provocation, but in this regard not just responsibility is required but also that the response is measured for the offense. I do not believe the violent protests in response to the cartoons have demonstrated responsible behavior. I also do not believe the level of violence demonstrated is commensurate with the acts of creating and publishing the cartoons.

I do not believe that Muslims are intrinsically violent. However, Islam is at risk of being hijacked by the fundamentalists who through these demonstrations, have proven themselves worse than their portrayal in the cartoons. The silence of the moderate/mainstream Muslim is truly deafening and disappointing. It does make me wonder whether who exactly represent Islam.

I do believe that all religions should en face be accorded a certain level of respect. But continued respect needs to be earned through words and deeds, not just mere existence. Those that have appropriated Islam in the name of spreading violence have only served to lessen the respect of many for Islam.

Finally, while respecting all religion, no religion has the right to enforce its belief onto others. While it is perfectly acceptable to forbid the depiction of Mohammed by Muslims (not specified by the Koran, and many examples have been commissioned and displayed by various Muslim rulers) it is absolutely unacceptable to forbid non-Muslim from depicting Mohammed.

I am ashamed of those who in seeking forgiveness in the name of harmony would so quickly drop to their knees in offering appeasements. Those who so willingly curtail their responsible act of freedom do not deserve it.

WoT: Iraq

I consider the Iraq war largely won this week. After the destruction of the 9th-century al-Askariya mosque, ‘The Golden Mosque’, in Samarra, there was as expected some violence. But note that the death rate was less than a hundred, less than some previous weekends in Iraq, and less than the bridge incident a few months back even. But this is not why I believe the war largely won. I believe it for the following reasons.

Firstly from Power Line

W]hat is not being reported is the calling for calm and cooperation by all Sunni & Shiite religious leaders (except the young Alsadar who remains a thorn). The demonstrations of national unity. The mullahs in Sunni & Shiite mosques calling for support for injured brothers and sisters, national calm. They do not report on the Shiites standing guard outside of Sunni mosques in the south. Etc...There are two sides to this incident. The side of revenge, anger and the much larger side of unity and support. This bombing in Samarah has brought more unity amongst Iraqis than any other incident since the stampede on the Kahdumiah bridge (when Felujans [mostly Sunni] donated blood for the wounded in Kahdumiah [mostly Shiite] in Baghdad). Iraqi political parties, community leaders, religious leaders, political leaders all are strongly condemning this bombing and asking for national support and help for the people of Samarah. This outpouring of compassion, support and help is what is not being reported.

Secondly, the only one who had anything to gain from this attack is al Qaeda. That they did not even claim this attack speaks volume, having learned that there is such thing as bad PR (as was after their wedding bombing in Jordan earlier). They are now operating in silence even in Jihad central.

It really is as simple as that. Not to say that Iraq will soon be a tourist paradise, but it will be more like what Afghanistan is now. The emphasis will now be on the nation building rather than national existence. The battle ground has already slowly shifted, partly eastward to Iran, and far westward to Europe.

Islam: Subverted and Hijacked 2

I found this article today that suggest this is not the first time that Islam has been appropriated for a political agenda.

USING Islam as a vehicle for political ambitions is not new. The Umayyads used it after the Prophet's death to set up a dynastic rule. Three of the four caliphs who succeeded Muhammad were assassinated in the context of political power games presented as religious disputes.

Fast forward to the 19th century, and the Persian adventurer Jamaleddin Assadabadi, who disguised himself as an Afghan to hide his Shiite origin and set out to build a career in the mostly Sunni land of Egypt. Although a Freemason, Jamal (who dubbed himself Sayyed Gamal) concluded that the only way to win power among Muslims was by appealing to their religious sentiments. So he transformed himself into an Islamic scholar, grew an impressive beard and donned a huge black turban to underline his claim of being a descendant of the Prophet.

His partner was Mirza Malkam Khan, an Armenian who claimed to have converted to Islam. Together, they launched the idea of an "Islamic Renaissance" (An-Nahda) and promoted the concept of a "perfect Islamic government" under an "enlightened despot."

Malkam had a slogan of unrivaled cynicism: "Tell the Muslims something is in the Koran, and they will die for you."

It does not matter whether the West view this as a clash of civilization. All it takes is one side to make it a clash. In someways I am reminded of the boxer rebellion (faith is not enough) as the Muslim world is in no position to war against the West, not since 1529 (the Battle of Vienna in 1683 only confirmed the peak of Ottoman power was 150 years before) and is unlikely to challenge the West in the forseable future militarily or economically. Sure they have oil but the world knows that it is only a matter of time before an alternative energy source is found.

BLDBLOG

Architecture and Art has remained a particular interest of mine for a long time now. Thus as a respite from politics and war I want to divert your attention to BLDBLOG where i found these pictures:


More can be seen here.

This post is also particularly interesting and be sure to follow the links given in the comment section.

Islam: Subverted and Hijacked

There is an Islamist agenda driving the current demonstrations over the cartoons. If the moderate and more enlightened Muslims do not rise up and speak out, they will lose the religion of Islam to fundamentalists' perversion. In a way, this is similar to how the Nazi took power while the moderate Germans dismiss them as amateurs and inconsequential. Before too long, they were either forced into fearful silence or had to leave their homeland altogether. Remember that the Islamists is waging a two front war, one to usurp power at home and the other is to gain dominion over the west. Their most effective vehicle is Islam, even more so than terrorism.

An excellent article by Amir Taheri

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind.

There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.

*

Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

Related:
A Perilous Premise
J'en peux plus: What will it be, moderate Muslims?
The Worst of All Defenders
Why can't Muslims take a joke?

The Clash

With the over reaction to the cartoons, the Islamists have been able to achieve what they have not before. They have now been able to frame this conflict as that between the west and Islam, a clash of civilization. While many have believed this to be happening already, most responsible international leaders have avoided this context. After 911 Bush acknowledged a war against Middle Eastern terrorism, but he took great care not to make it a war against Muslims. In Afghanistan the US fought against fundamentalists. In Iraq the US fought against totalitarianism to bring democracy, rather than against Islamofascism. After the London bombing Blair was equally cautious not to be provoked and drawn into the clash of civilizations.

From the Islamist stand point, 911 has to be seen as a failure because while it did strike at the US heart, it failed to muster a global Muslim Jihad against the West. Worse, it ignited a US response to come into the Middle East. In Spain, while 311 likely cause a change in the electoral outcome and subsequent Spanish withdrawal from Iraq, this was at best a military tactical victory rather than a strategic victory. The Muslim streets remain silent.

But when Newsweek publishes reports that the US had flushed the Koran down the toilet, there were voices of protests and denunciation in the Muslim streets. Anyone watching could have seen that more than acts of terrorism; this was a more effective mean to mobilize the Muslim streets. Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for the West, the furor quickly abated; most likely due to that quickly reported error of the report, and that there were no accountable eyewitnesses.

But with the cartoons, especially with the additions of 2-3 fake ones, all could see for themselves. The Koran forbids idolatry; it does not forbid depictions of Muhammed himself. But this hardly matter, that line is fuzzy and can be glossed over by the Islamists. By conflagrating the fire, the Islamists intentionally are fueling the flames of the Muslim streets. Through these cartoons, the Islamists have been able to play up and highlight that the West are infidels and that Muslims are victimized. Time for righteous actions!

However, the West, especially Europe and her appeasing ways, do have limits. Freedom of speech is one of the most cherished values and freedoms, far beyond any particular ideology. I do not believe that even Europe would be so quick to give this up. To do so would mean the end of Europe as we know it. The Islamist will continue to push their agenda until it is too late for Europe. But if Europe holds, then the Islamist will continue onward, and add this as another grievance suffered upon the faithful. There is no satisfactions until war brings them dominion or defeat (which they do not believe possible).

Dominion is their goal. Terrorism was a favored mean that may be falling out of favor, as it alienate too many Muslims. So now they are playing the religious persecution card by ways of a public relation war.

The Hindu Responds in Outrage

"HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed."

It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.

But radical Muslims do.

This is not about poverty. There are plenty of impoverished in the Hindu areas as well as Muslim areas.
This is not about oppression.
This is about an ideology of intolerance.

UPDATE:
Moderate Muslims Apologizes

UPDATE 2, HUMOR:
Something Awful
National Lampoon

Buy Danish

The Danish cartoons that started the furor.




Related:
Blogburst at Michelle Malkin
Boycott the Boycott at Atlas Shrugs
Cartoon War at All Things Beautiful
I am Spartacus at the Belmont Club
German Journalist Association Says at Davids Medienkritik
Offensive Cartoon at Crossroads Arabia

Update:
More Dutch Cartoons!
Powerline

The state department is wrong to denounce these cartoons.

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the beliefs of Muslims," State Department spokesman Justin Higgins said when queried about the furore sparked by the cartoons which first appeared in a Danish newspaper.
"We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility," Higgins told AFP.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable. We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

It is one thing to denounce erroneous reporting, ala the "flush the Koran" by newsweek, by a news organization of your own country when at war with the topic of the false reports. It is another to denounce the publications of opinion-commentary cartoons in another country that can only lead to repressive political-correctness. Stupid.

In their entirety:


Update 2:
From the State Department:

"We find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find those images offensive," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in his daily press briefing February 3.
"At the same time, we vigorously defend the right of individuals" to express views that the U.S. government may disagree with or condemn, he added.

Seems that the MSM are misrepresenting this as a "condemnation."